National Book Trust vs Uma Bansal
2011 Latest Caselaw 952 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Order : 17th February, 2011

+                      LPA No.118/2009

       NATIONAL BOOK TRUST              ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr.GVR Choudhary and
                         Mr.A.Chandra Shekhar, Advocates

                              versus
       UMA BANSAL                             ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Birja Mahaptra, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. The issue of the roster point vacancy being debated in the appeal does not even arise for consideration and we proceed to note the relevant facts.

2. The respondent had an issue pertaining to the adverse entries contained in her ACR for the year 2003-04 against which she had filed a representation which was allowed on 17.11.2005 and prior thereto a DPC met to consider the departmental candidates working as Assistant Editors for promotion to the post of Editor and selected one Smt. Sushma Sonak, junior to the respondent. On 02.11.2005 Sushma

Sonak was issued the letter of promotion. This happened 15 days prior to respondent's representation against adverse entry in her ACR for the year 2003-04 being allowed.

3. Sushma Sonak resigned on 24.08.2007 and claiming that the resultant vacancy, on account of the roster being maintained, accrued to the direct recruitment quota the appellant sought to fill up the vacancy by inviting applications from eligible candidates.

4. The respondent filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.1829/2008 praying that the vacancy in question which arose when Sushma Sonak resigned, since she was a promotee, the resultant vacancy had to be filled up treating the same to be in the promotee quota.

5. The appellant opposed the writ petition pleading that as per the Recruitment Rule, 4 posts of Editor's existed; 2 out of which were assigned to the direct recruit quota and the remaining 2 to the promotee quota. It was pleaded that the appellants were maintaining a roster chart and as per the same irrespective of source of recruitment of the Editor who retired, the appellant was filling the vacancies, alternating between promotee and a direct recruit.

6. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.09.2008 the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent holding that since out of the 4 posts of Editor, 2 were meant by direct recruits, the vacancy in question caused on account of the resignation of Sushma Sonak had to be filled

up by promotion, since 2 direct recruits were working as Editors.

7. The appellants urge that the learned Single Judge ignored that roster vacancy chart maintained by the appellants requiring one vacancy to be filled by promotion and the next by direct recruitment followed by promotion and then direct recruitment and so on. As per the appellants it was not maintaining any schedule of rota:quota.

8. We are of the opinion that the issue is not of rota:quota or of roster point vacancy chart, but the entitlement of the respondent to have a review DPC constituted when the DPC in which Sushma Sonak was selected as a promotee candidate for the reason said DPC considered the ACR of the respondent containing adverse remarks against which respondent's representation was pending, and as noted hereinabove, which representation was finally accepted and adverse entries in the ACR for the year 2003-04 were set aside. To put it pithily, respondent's entitlement had to be satisfied by convening a review DPC, for the reason, even if Sushma Sonak had not resigned this ought to have been done. In other words, qua the respondent, the clock has to be put back for the vacancy which got filled when Sushma Sonak was promoted.

9. But we issue no direction, for the reason, though pertaining to a lien vacancy in which one Sh.H.Nagarajappa was promoted as an Editor by treating the lien vacancy as falling in the promotee quota, at the DPC held on 12.11.2009,

presided over by Professor Bipan Chandra, Chairman, NBT; Ms.Nuzhat Hassan, Director, CBT; Dr.Bichar Dass; Ex. Director Central Translation Bureau; Dr.Suresh Chand, Special Officer, MHRD; Sh.Amar Mudi, Joint Director, NBT; the candidature of the respondent was considered and it was found that the respondent could not achieve the Bench mark prescribed. This selection has not been questioned by the respondent.

10. It is apparent that no useful purpose would be served in issuing any mandamus to consider the candidature of the respondent as a promotee candidate with respect to the vacancy in question, for the simple reason, we have material on record that the respondent has not achieved the requisite Bench Mark and this material is the DPC as noted above. Even if we direct a review DPC to be held, it would be an idle formality, since the result is known.

11. The appeal stands disposed of relieving the appellant of the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge and as a consequence we dispose of the appeal dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent.

12. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 mr